04/06/2024 18:40, Dariusz Sosnowski:
> > > 04/06/2024 14:38, Rongwei Liu:
> > > > --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> > > > +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> > > > @@ -1006,6 +1006,7 @@ static const char *const flow_field_ids[] = {
> > > > "ipv6_flow_label", "ipv6_traffic_class",
> > > > "esp_spi", "esp_seq_num", "esp_proto",
> > > > "random",
> > > > + "vxlan_last_rsvd",
> > > > NULL
> > > > };
> > >
> > > How vxlan_last_rsvd is linked to RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_RSVD1 in testpmd?
> > > Just because it is the same order?
>
> Yes, it's because of the order.
> We should refactor this to use array designators.
>
> > > > --- a/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > > > +++ b/lib/ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > > > @@ -2428,6 +2428,7 @@ enum rte_flow_field_id {
> > > > RTE_FLOW_FIELD_ESP_SEQ_NUM, /**< ESP Sequence Number. */
> > > > RTE_FLOW_FIELD_ESP_PROTO, /**< ESP next protocol value. */
> > > > RTE_FLOW_FIELD_RANDOM, /**< Random value. */
> > > > + RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_RSVD1, /**< VXLAN last reserved byte. */
> > > > };
> > >
> > > I think we should use the same naming as in testpmd.
> > > What about RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_LAST_RSVD?
> > To be honest, no strong objection per my personal thought. Considering the
> > API "vxlan_hdr" names this field as "uint8_t rsvd1", maybe
> > RTE_FLOW_FIELD_VXLAN_RSVD1 will be clearer for user as 1 vs 1 mapping?
>
> +1 on using RSVD1 so it matches rte_vxlan_hdr definition.
>
> In this patch, "vxlan_last_rsvd" is used in testpmd, so it matches existing
> "last_rsvd" field in VXLAN item.
> If we choose to use "rsvd1", we should probably rename all other instances of
> "last_rsvd" to match.
I prefer "vxlan_last_rsvd" for 2 reasons:
- it is more meaningful
- we are adding first, second and third reserved fields to match the 3
bytes of rsvd0 (patch to come)
